battlefieldfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Re-Adding In The Chat
05:03, August 8, 2013 (UTC) * Discussion Why was it removed ? DiCePWNeD Recon| | 05:19, August 8, 2013 (UTC) Most conflicts on the Wiki started in chat, ergo the permanent ban after three strikes. But YES ITS BACK! Still better then Steam, especially when pple wont accepted friend requests so you can chat. -- '' awyman13'' Talk' ' 05:26, August 8, 2013 (UTC) :I wont have a Star next to my name now though >_< -- '' awyman13'' Talk' ' 05:29, August 8, 2013 (UTC) Glad it is back. :) The new policy should work out well, hopefully. '' [[User:PLR Soldier|'PLR Soldier']][[user talk:PLR Soldier|'Talk']] '' 08:00, August 8, 2013 (UTC) What about those who were promoted to chat mod before being a TU? DiCePWNeD Recon| | 09:49, August 8, 2013 (UTC) All TUs are to have their chat mods right stripped regardless.--fucking iPad is a pos 14:03, August 8, 2013 (UTC) Hi. Normally I don't come around this wiki too often but Slopijoe piqued my interest with this forum so I thought I'd leave my two cents: I disagree with points #3 and 4. *3: Why would you keep the rules separate? If you're going to keep the rules similar anyway you might as well apply the same rules from the wiki on the chat as well. It is part of the wiki and thus should be treated as such. There really isn't a downside to including it under the same juristiction. *4: This "strike system" is pointless, arbitrary, and unnecessary. Why? No, no seriously, why? Why not just treat each problem the same way you would on the wiki? If you were to include the chat under the wiki's rules then you wouldn't have to worry about following some sort of power-hungry strike system that allows for no wiggle room for any users. It just seems a little elitist. Who decides what a strike is? It would have to be a consensus-driven decision as to what constitutes a strike. If you only get three strikes and then you're banned forever, handing out strikes isn't exactly a lighthanded business. All you have to do is leave the banning to moderators who can make a call themselves, depending on the severity of the problem at hand, and you seem to have already solved that problem with point #1. So really, I understand (to an extent) the issues you guys have experienced here with chat before just from what Slopijoe has told me, but instead of instituting some overcomplicated ultraconservative banning system into what should be a light-hearted chat anyway, you should be focusing on banning the users that cause the problems in the first place. Joe Copp 16:39, August 8, 2013 (UTC) :Let me first make clear that, firstly, this is not a consensus-based wiki; I understand that you're from a wiki which is consensus-based, but that does not mean your rules apply on this wiki. I also stress that chat is not an integral feature of any wiki. It is optional and can be turned on and off at will. :Your objection to number three is illogical. The chat and the wiki are separate to start with; should all editing rules apply on the chat as well? The CoC has proven insufficient for all of the fights which start on wiki chat. Having more stringent rules on an optional wiki feature, which has time and time again proven more trouble than it could possibly be worth, seems like a fair deal to me. Especially when there is already a superior option available in the form of Steam, which is faster, more intuitive, and more stable than wiki chat. :When I'' legislate, I try to ensure that it is very clear what the intent is behind it, and what the new/altered policies entail. Ergo, everything you have said with regards to #4 is incorrect. No, it is ''not elitist, as the intent was for administrators to discuss before any action is taken, as set down by precedent actions taken during previous chat problems. No, it actually is pretty lighthanded; we're not talking permanent wiki-bans, but rather permanent chatbans -- and consider it that when somebody shows blatant and gross disregard for established policy, multiple times over, perhaps it might be the case that they should not be using the chat at all. The problem with chatmods is that half the time they're part of the problem, rather than lending their time to try and solve it. :We've banned, banned, and banned more troublemakers from wiki chat in the past. That has never stopped them from causing yet more problems the minute they get their chat privileges back. When it reaches a point that one can expect to be in an argument every time one logs into chat, I start to doubt the wisdom in even having that optional feature in the first place. And obviously, a majority of active trusted users and most of the other administrators agreed with me, as well, because we agreed to remove it wholesale. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 17:52, August 8, 2013 (UTC) ::If this wiki isn't governed by consensus then why does BF:WHAT say "Almost all decisions on the wiki are determined by consensus amongst community members."? At its core, chat is certainly optional, but I find it to be more than just a small addition to a wiki and more of a community bolstering tool, which is why I would regard it as part of the wiki if it were to be activated. It is part of the website when activated, and since the same users use the chat as use the wiki, it would only make sense if the policies carry over. The CoC can, by changing a few words, be effectively carried over to chat, with the exception of a few editing-specific rules. Everything about user behavior can apply. The only thing possibly worth changing is the Discipline section, though I still disagree with the strike system. Your point about it not being effective enough for the fights that occur on chat doesn't make any sense, because if that were true than perhaps simply bolstering the CoC on-wiki would solve that problem and prevent further issues, or even a stricter interpretation of the CoC on-chat would suffice. There need not be an entirely new ruleset for something that houses the same users on-wiki, who (supposedly) already know the policies. All that needs to be done to suit the chat is to change the Discipline section to meet the needs of chat. ::Also, it may have been my error but I did not mean to come off as wholly unsupportive of permanent chat bans. In fact, my last point had to do with that specifically: if there are recurring trouble makers, a permanent ban would be in order. If several admins must convene to suit standard protocol, then that is perfectly reasonable. When I called the strike system "elitist," I meant it in the way that new users coming to join the chat would be subjected to an entirely new ruleset and expectations list, dependent on what was decided for a strike to really mean. I think it would be far simpler to carry over the same rules of user behavior from the wiki to chat to avoid the hassle, and I don't really see a downside to doing so. Joe Copp 18:43, August 8, 2013 (UTC) :::BF:WHAT also explicitly states that we're a democracy. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 03:16, August 11, 2013 (UTC) The new rules for the chatroom is to be discussed at 3pm today.-- The Hochseeflotte Serving Germany since 1871 17:46, August 10, 2013 (UTC) :Which time zone? '' [[User:PLR Soldier|'PLR Soldier']][[user talk:PLR Soldier|'Talk']] '' 17:55, August 10, 2013 (UTC) ::Chicago time line or I could use the chat that I hate the most...-- The Hochseeflotte Serving Germany since 1871 17:58, August 10, 2013 (UTC) I must say, these rules are much better than before. I'll admit, the Chat Mod right on Trusted Users had almost no point in it. Almost every time, it's just gonna be a Star Party. Anyway I hope the chat has better days than before. }}